Representative image. | Photo credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
The distinction between “active” and “passive” euthanasia goes beyond the simplistic binary of “action” versus “omission,” Supreme Court judge Justice JB Pardiwala said on Wednesday (March 11, 2026).
“The real difference between active and passive euthanasia lies not only in the nature of the act, i.e. act or omission, but also in the source of the harm that leads to death,” Justice Pardiwala said in the judgment, upholding the withdrawal of life support from a 32-year-old man who had been in a vegetative state for more than 12 years.
The judge characterized active euthanasia as causing death by introducing a new external method of harm, such as lethal injection. “In such cases, death is not the result of the underlying disease of the patient, but of an intervention that sets in motion a new chain of events. For this reason, active euthanasia is understood as an intervention that disrupts the natural course of death,” Judge Pardiwala said in the judgment.
On the contrary, he explained that passive euthanasia should be understood as enabling death. By withdrawing or suspending life support, the physician does not create a new risk of death. Rather, doctors chose to allow the underlying mortal condition to take its natural course by no longer continuing with medical procedures that artificially prolonged life. “The undisputed fact is that the patient’s disability, i.e. the underlying medical condition, is not caused by any act or omission of the doctor. Rather, the underlying condition is caused by factors independent of the doctor or his actions,” Justice Pardiwala said.
However, interruption of treatment should not in any circumstances violate the duty of care owed by the physician to the patient. “Abandoning any medical effort must not be inconsistent with the duty of care that is attached to any medical intervention,” Justice Pardiwala emphasized.
The judgment stated that active euthanasia involved a “positive, overt act” intended to shorten the natural life span and extinguish life. “Under the mandate of Article 21, no person can be deprived of life except in accordance with a procedure established by law. Therefore, for active euthanasia to be legally permissible, there must be an express legislative provision authorizing such deprivation,” Justice Pardiwala observed.
Published – 11 March 2026 22:21 IST
